Nov. 15.

The Bill now passed the Commons, 1680. and Lord Russell was ordered to carry it up to the House of Lords for their concurrence. He did so four days afterwards. We are told in the Life of James that many members wished the Bill to be kept back for a short time longer, not thinking the Lords sufficiently prepared; but that Lord Russell, carried on by his exceeding ardour on this occasion, and having the Bill in his hand, ran away with it in spite of all opposition. Finding they could not withhold him, many members accompanied him, and, when it was delivered, gave a mighty shout.

In the debate on the first reading, Lord Essex and Lord Shaftesbury were the chief speakers for it, and Lord Halifax against it. The King was present all the time, and the whole House of Commons, having adjourned their proceedings expressly for this purpose, attended the debate. On a divison the Bill was lost, 63 being against it, and only 30 for it. The Lord Sunderland, to the great surprise and displeasure of the King, appeared in the minority. The great majority on this occasion is not difficult to account for. Besides the bishops, whose principles and interest were both against the Bill, there were a number of Lords, either attracted by the distinctions and swayed by the pleasures

of the Court, or unable to withstand the personal canvass of the King. In the debate, the party against the exclusion derived great advantage from the ready wit and ingenious eloquence of Lord Halifax. For, unhappily, this very able man, though pursuing the same objects as Lord Essex and Lord Shaftesbury, had so great a respect for his own wisdom, that he preferred leaving our religion and liberty without any security, to accepting that which was devised by the judgment of his political friends. *

Lord Halifax proposed, as an expedient to secure the country from the dangers apprehended, that the Duke should be banished for life. The Whigs were totally averse to this proposal, and James himself dreaded it still more than the Exclusion Bill. +

I shall conclude this chapter with the excellent observations of Mr. Fox on the comparative

* It is more conformable to the character of Lord Halifax to suppose him swayed by the motive I have assigned to him, than by personal animosity against Shaftesbury. Yet he no doubt viewed with apprehension the prospect of Monmouth succeeding to the throne. It would appear, both from Burnet and Temple, that his quarrel with Shaftesbury was rather an effect of his opposition to the Exclusion Bill, than the cause of it.

† Life, vol. i. p. 635.

VOL. I.

merits of the Bill of Exclusion and the plan of limitations.

66

"To those who acted with good faith, and "meant that the restrictions should really take place and be effectual, surely it ought to have "occurred, (and to those who most prized the "prerogatives of the Crown, it ought most

forcibly to have occurred,) that in consenting "to curtail the powers of the Crown, rather "than to alter the succession, they were adopt"ing the greater, in order to avoid the lesser "evil. The question of what are to be the

powers of the Crown, is surely of superior im"portance to that of who shall wear it? Those, "at least, who consider the royal prerogative as "vested in the King, not for his sake, but for that "of his subjects, must consider the one of these "questions as much above the other in dignity, "as the rights of the public are more valuable "than those of an individual. In this view, the "prerogatives of the crown are in substance "and effect the rights of the people; and these

rights of the people were not to be sacrificed "to the purpose of preserving the succession to "the most favoured prince, much less to one "who, on account of his religious persuasion, "was justly feared and suspected. In truth, "the question between the exclusion and re"strictions seems peculiarly calculated to as

"certain the different views in which the differ"ent parties in this country have seen, and

66

perhaps ever will see, the prerogatives of the "Crown. The Whigs, who consider them as a "trust for the people, — a doctrine which the "Tories themselves, when pushed in argument, "will sometimes admit, -naturally think it their

66

duty rather to change the manager of the "trust, than to impair the subject of it; while "others, who consider them as the right or pro

perty of the King, will as naturally act as they "would do in the case of any other property, "and consent to the loss or annihilation of any "part of it, for the purpose of preserving the "remainder to him whom they style the rightful "owner. If the people be the sovereign, and "the King the delegate, it is better to change "the bailiff, than to injure the farm; but if the

66

King be the proprietor, it is better the farm "should be impaired, nay, part of it destroyed, "than that the whole should pass over to an "usurper."

A doctrine, entirely similar in its scope and purport to the opinion here given by Mr. Fox, is laid down by Lord Russell, in the paper which he delivered to the sheriffs on the scaffold: "As to the limitations that were proposed," he there says, "if they were sincerely offered, and had passed into a law, the Duke then should have

been excluded from the power of a King, and the government quite altered, and little more than the name of a King left; so I could not see either sin or fault in the one, when all the people were willing to admit the other; but thought it better to have a King with his prerogative, and the nation easy and safe under him, than a King without it, which would breed perpetual jealousies and a continual struggle."